Congressman: Obama should unilaterally ‘refinance every home mortgage’

[boston bean]

Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran told The Daily Caller on Thursday evening that President Obama should “refinance every home mortgage” without congressional approval in order to “reset the economy.”

“Absolutely, I think should do that but there are not a lot of places where he can act unilaterally,” Moran told TheDC during Conservation International’s Oct. 20 dinner in Washington, D.C.

“If he chooses to act unilaterally,” Moran said, “the likelihood is that there will be language in the appropriations bills that will prohibit him from spending money for that purpose. That’s just the political reality. But notwithstanding that, I think he should do everything he can do on his own to stimulate jobs.”

Obama has already asked his Council on Jobs to identify areas of the American Jobs Act that can be implemented without congressional authorization.

Moran told TheDC that he would “like to see” the Obama administration “refinance every home mortgage at three-and-a-half to four percent” interest, which he said can be accomplished without approval from Congress.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/21/congressman-obama-should-unilaterally-refinance-every-home-mortgage-video/#ixzz1bbz417o9

video at link...

[Firebrand Gary]

1. Does the President actually have the authority to pull this off?

If so that would strap this economy to a rocket ship.

[boston bean]

2. According to Rep. Moran, he does. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Moran is dead wrong

The government does not currently have the authority, with or without congressional authorization.

It is just frigging dumb to throw out stupid shit like that.

[boston bean]

7. What is the exact reason Obama can't do this? nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. There are many...

Lets start with the the basics: The President of the United States can not unilaterally change private contracts by decree.

[boston bean]

13. The majority are backed by Fannie and Freddie. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Not relevant to existing mortages.

Freddie and Fannie could change their rules for new ones, but cannot change existing one post facto nor impact private ones.

[boston bean]

19. I want to know why Obama can't do it? Exact reason why please.

Not that it's just a bad idea.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Already answered. What part of it do you not understand?

[boston bean]

25. Jim Moran says he can, your answer is not a real reason why he cannot.

You have not debunked it, not even close.

I am asking these questions honestly. I am also trying to determine how I might feel about this.

I am asking in good faith for a real answer. Not that Moran is just dummy, or that he is wrong.

I need some cold hard facts. Which obviously I am not aware of the all the rules, or claim to have some expertise in it.

Hence the question.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. If Contracts and Constitutional Powers 101 are not enough for you, what would be?

He bluntly does not have the power and authority

[boston bean]

36. Jim Moran made the distinction in the video. Did you watch it?

If not, please watch and then let me know the reason he cannot.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. See post #43. Moran made a classic pol statement and you are misreading it

[boston bean]

48. I didn't add any personal opinion in the OP. In fact, I have barely had a personal opinion in this

thread.

I have been asking questions. Trying to figure it all out.

You seem quite confident, yet, you really don't have an answer.

[selah775]

86. What is in it for the OWs

Hi what is in it for the OWer. I don't work--well, will the guv give me other people's houses? I mean--this is the Jackpot!!!!

[reformed_military]

104. Here is the rub as I see it.

A) Based on the current law, POTUS can't do it.

B) Some are advocating the current POTUS to modify a private contract between two entities because he is "our guy" but once it happens once there is NOTHING to keep a REPUBLICAN in office down the road from doing the same thing the other way. Do you wish to give him (or anyone) that much power?

[Exilednight]

90. What part of the Constitution prevents him from doing it? Contracts are ruled null and

void all the time.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. By the judicial branch at the request of someone who has privty of contract

For starters, POTUS does not have that between you and you bank.

[Doremus]

42. Sure about that?

At least for bad mortgages, Fannie & Freddie owned only 16%.

[boston bean]

52. Not sure, but I think that Fannie and Freddie own most of them due to the bail outs.

could be wrong though.

on edit, found this:

Washington-based Fannie Mae and McLean, Va.-based Freddie Mac own or guarantee about half of all mortgages in the U.S., or nearly 31 million home loans worth more than $5 trillion. Along with other federal agencies, they played some part in almost 90 percent of new mortgages over the past year.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-Mae-posts-21B-loss-for-apf-1743661196.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

[Pab Sungenis]

69. What change?

The government could buy out every foreclosed home, paying off the noteholder and thus fulfilling the contract, then write a new mortgage for the homeowners which could then be administered by the government or sold to a new third party.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. Not without enabling legislation and appropriations

The OP seems to think that this can be done via POTUS decree. It can't. The gov has no authority to step in anymore than you or I do. It would require legislation and funding, neither of which will be asked for by the administration nor given by Congress.

Could it be done...only if several miracles occur. Will it be done...off course not.

I am amazed that people are taking throw away soundbites from a pol so seriously.

[Pab Sungenis]

77. It already has the power.

It can be done by creating a "bad bank" (or aggregator bank to use a different term) through the Fed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. Lay that one out

And explain how it would impact the interest rate on an existing loan between a homeowner in California and their credit union.

[Exilednight]

91. That would actually work. Create a bad bank, buy up the mortgages, lord knows the banks don

want them - then renegotiate with homeowner and lower rates. And you're right, the Fed could do it without Congressional approval since they aren't entirely a government agency.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

100. Where would the funding come from to buy up the mortgages?

Hint: The Fed has no investment capital, certainly no where near the amount need to do what you are proposing.

Face reality, it can not be done under current law. It may well be a good idea but its not going to happen without legislation and appropriations from the Legislative branch.

[Exilednight]

107. That's why you create the bad bank. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

110. The paperwork to create it does not mean the funding to do what you propose will appear

as if by magic

[Exilednight]

111. it doesn't need funding, just short term borrowing power - which is

what the fed does for banks.

[IndyPragmatist]

112. Tell that to the GM bondholders

[StarsInHerHair]

94. FDR created the h.o.l.c.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,792832,00.html

Most government excursions into the field of private enterprise have cost taxpayers money. So when the Home Owners Loan Corp. was created, Congressional sibyls prophesied that the Government would lose at least $1 billion. Last week HOLC's spry old board chairman, John Henry Fahey, produced figures to show how wrong they had been. When HOLC is finally liquidated in 1948, he said it will show a net profit of some $11,000,000.

Starting in 1933, when mortgages were being foreclosed at the rate of 1,000 a day, HOLC made more than 1,000,000 loans, totaling some $3,500,000,000. In the next three years (its lending period) it refinanced one-fifth of the nonfarm, owner-occupied, mortgaged homes in the nation. Thanks to the war boom, more than three fourths of the loans have now been paid off. By the end of 1945, only 483,000 borrowers were still on the books, while another 348,000 borrowers had paid their loans in full without waiting for them to mature. HOLC had foreclosed on less than 200,000 loans, most of them from 1937 to 1940. It has already sold all but 120 of the houses. Fahey says its net loss of $50,000,000 to the end of 1945 will be more than covered by HOLC's income from other loans."

..."During the Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress dealt with huge impending foreclosures by creating the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation. Now, a small but growing group of academics and public figures, including Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, is calling for the federal government to bring back something like the HOLC. Count me in."...
"The HOLC was established in June 1933 to help distressed families avert foreclosures by replacing mortgages that were in or near default with new ones that homeowners could afford. It did so by buying old mortgages from banks — most of which were delighted to trade them in for safe government bonds — and then issuing new loans to homeowners. The HOLC financed itself by borrowing from capital markets and the Treasury.

The scale of the operation was impressive. Within two years, the HOLC received about 1.9 million applications from distressed homeowners and granted just over a million new mortgages. (Adjusting only for population growth, the corresponding mortgage figure today would be almost 2.5 million.) Nearly one of every five mortgages in America became owned by the HOLC. Its total lending over its lifetime amounted to $3.5 billion — a colossal sum equal to 5 percent of a year’s gross domestic product at the time. (The corresponding figure today would be about $750 billion.) "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/business/24view.html

It worked before.....go with a proven success

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. It was done with the cooperation of the Legislative branch, not by executive fiat

It clearly states that in your citation, though it is somewhat glossed over. Additional relevant data:

http://www.nber.org/books/harr51-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowners_Refinancing_Act

It is quite clear that a repeat could not be done today without the cooperation of the Legislative Branch, which FDR had back then.

Not saying its a bad idea...it does have have many things to commend it. However those claiming Obama can do it with a stroke of a pen are really deluding themselves. When it doesn't happen that way, they will be throwing more rocks at the President due to their self created false expectations. Which at this point is somewhat exasperating.

All that said, HOLC 2.0 would make a good goal for OWS.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Wouldn't that be an indirect way of bailing out the banks -- again?

If all mortgages were refinanced, yes, there would be both recapitalization of the banks and giving consumers money to return to the economy.

But OTOH, it's still bailing out banks that purposely and knowingly issued bad loans to the wrong mortagagors. Foreclosure means the banks aren't rewarded for their corruption and they get far less money than their principle and interest, ergo, less profits.

I understand that not doing this also hurts innocent people who were not part of this scheme, that they may have lost their jobs, etc. and I'm torn. I don't want to see them thrown out of their homes. But I also see the government refinancing home mortgages are helping out the banks who could refinance these loans themselves.

[boston bean]

4. Ask yourself why the banks aren't doing it themselves if it helps them so much...

I think that will give you your answer.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Yep.

[Exilednight]

92. They're not doing ti because they want the full value of the original loan. n/t

[Lucky Luciano]

29. This would crush the banks.

If you valued a loan that was based on 6% cash flows of the principal and all of a sudden the cash flows would be based on 4%, then the value of that loan to the bank goes down by a massive amount. Now apply that to millions of mortgages. The banks would have to mark down their mortgage books by trillions - they would need q bailout after that!

[Firebrand Gary]

38. Then in turn and as stated in financial reform

The bank needing a bailout would qualify for the bailout from the funds the banks were required to raise but would also trigger the institution being broke apart and sold.

[Pab Sungenis]

70. It's the way the banks should have been bailed out to begin with.

The government should have set up a "bad bank" to buy the troubled assets at 50 cents (or so) on the dollar. This would have recapitalized the banks and gotten the bad assets off their balance sheets. Then the bank could have rewritten the mortgages and either administered or sold them to a third party.

[Firebrand Gary]

8. All I want for Christmas is this to be true and for Obama to do it.

This would be a miracle for the middle class. 3 1/2% would save a lot of families future.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. And many little girls want a pony

Can't be done by decree and Moran has to know that.

[boston bean]

12. really? and why is that Obama can't do it? Exact reason please.. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Cited above...lets keep it in a single subthread

[boston bean]

28. I'll respond where I see fit, thank you. Just as you are. We can both do what we like. nt

[Amonester]

11. But the party of NO would say NO.

Because their stRtegi$t$ would tell them it's how to make Obama fail.

[MadHound]

14. Ah, he wants a dictatorship,

Worse, he wants Obama to have the power to break private contracts and renegotiate them. A huge slippery slope there, one we shouldn't go down.

[boston bean]

17. He says Obama does have the power.

I am definitely no expert on this, but on the face, it seems like it would be very helpful to the people.

I need you to explain some more, about why this would be so dreadful and lead to a dictatorship.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. And as discussed above, Moran is wrong

[MadHound]

21. It would require giving Obama the power to break private contracts,

IE mortgages. I don't want to see any president have that power. To do so would open up every single other contract, business, buying, selling, etc. to the possibility of it being broken by the President.

[boston bean]

23. I'm not sure I see it as a slippery slope. there are many things he cannot do.

Seems as though this is one which is in his control.

I think the video outlines that pretty well.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. You think POTUS can unilaterally break private contracts?

[boston bean]

26. I said Jim Moran said he can lower the rates unilaterally. That is what I am saying. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. That is not what Moran said...and POTUS can not unilaterally do it anyway

[boston bean]

31. What did Moran say then? What am I misunderstanding? nt

[MadHound]

34. In order to do so, he would have to break a private contract

For instance, if the President wanted to lower my interest rate on my mortgage, he would have to break the contract that my local bank and I signed and notarized. It is a legal, binding agreement, and neither party can break it without consequences. What gives the President the power to break it?

[boston bean]

41. Many of these contracts that were done, were not on the up and up.

Re-setting the playing field, might not be a bad thing.

I hear what you are saying, but I am not 100% convinced.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. The answer is still not a POTUS decree

[boston bean]

45. Why? nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

76. Because he does not have the authority at this point to break private contracts

nor the financial authority to fund such a program

[boston bean]

79. That is not what Jim Moran is saying.... you need to listen again to his words. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

80. I did, typical pol sound bite, no details, not implementable, but made the news

[boston bean]

81. then you don't understand.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. No it is you who does not understand the current laws and how home financing works

Not surprising, not many do who have not worked in the environment.

He can't do what Moran alluded to, even Moran admitted without congressional action, little could be done but they were looking at it.

Change the laws and then something could happen.

[boston bean]

83. He admitted no such thing, in fact, he said the exact opposite of what you are interpreting. nt

[MadHound]

88. That still doesn't give him the power to break a private contract

Just because the deal was a bad one doesn't give the president the right to break the contract, otherwise lots of used car dealers would be out of business.

If it is a bad contract, then take it through the court system, that is the proper venue.

You give this sort of power to even a well meaning Democratic president today, a not so well meaning Republican president will use it tomorrow.

[selah775]

87. we'll have to borrow the money from China

Will we have to borrow more money from China. I don't mind being an OW, but I don't be Chinese.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. Agree. n/t

[Chih]

18. It is contemptible for a sitting member of Congress advocate for the transfer of power vested

in the People's House, to the Executive branch.

Mr. Moran's statements demonstrate a total disregard for his oath of office and he should resign immediately. :puke:

[Amonester]

33. ah-um: This $y$tem is...

broken

and

broke

as in

It.Does.Not.Work (for the 99%).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. Correct, It would require some massive legal changes and is not possible today

[Amonester]

37. Let's make it become possible then.

Afterall, this is America, where anything is (supposed to be) possible, no?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. At least lets not foolishly claim it can be done today by POTUS decree

What the OP is clueless about is that Moran actually said. He wants the Federal Gov to support the refi of all mortgages, and infers changing the ones owned by Fannie and Freddie. He also admitted that it would be very hard to do without congressional support. Moran is a smart pol, gave out soundbites that do not say what some took them to mean, such as the OP.

To make this happen would require state and federal action. It would devalue banks tremendously as they compete with the Federal Government and some would go insolvent (may or may not be a bad thing). It is not simple, would help less that half of homeowners, and the homeowners would still have to qualify.

[boston bean]

47. I think you need to re-watch the video. He doesn't say what you are saying he did. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. He said what I described. He was a typical pol giving out soundbites

Its what pols do.

[boston bean]

50. He said what is written in the OP, and what he said in the video. Not your interpretation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

68. Try again, this time with some clarity

[socialist_n_TN]

58. "It would devalue banks tremendously as they compete with

the Federal Government...." Ah! Now we come to the crux of it. That's the same argument that the RW used against single payer. The poor health care industry couldn't compete with a non-profit system like Medicare for All.

My answer to that is SO FUCKING WHAT? THIS VERY ATTITUDE is why OWS is in existence today. We can't harm the poor banks by actually making them compete with a non-profit system. Or the health care industries. Or the energy companies. Etc. :sarcasm:

Fuck 'em. Nationalize ALL the general welfare industries and run them for administrative costs only. THAT'S something that would HELP the 99%. But of course, since it would HURT the 1%, it'll never happen. Short of a revolution that is. Anybody wonder that I'm a Marxist?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. Did I say it was a bad thing?

Net impact is hard to tell since it was a typical pol soundbite and not a serious proposal. All loans without regards to borrower qualifications and property appraisals? That is bailout for the bankers not the people. If you require both of those, you can already get nearly that today in the private sector, so where is the benefit?

It would certainly reshape a major part of the banking industry. Small banks and Credit Unions are mostly home load providers. Are those the banks we think need to be reduced? The banks we should be concerned about are not that heavy into home loans.

Without substantive details (which will never be provided) we have no clue what kind of program it would be. Typical pol soundbite looking for media coverage.

[socialist_n_TN]

89. Nope most of the exposure was to private mortgage banks

Who went nutz in the early Aughts making 100% loans to poeple with 500 credit scores JUST TO INCREASE MARKET SHARE. The old "Invisible Hand of the Market" working it's wonders. Who'd a thunk it. Those people were bad risks??? Of course when a lot of those companies went belly up, they (and their "assets") were bought out by OTHER ones. I know. I worked (as a grunt, but a smart grunt) in the mortgage industry for over 10 years throughout all of the boom.

The problem is that now those days are gone and the standards in the PRIVATE sector are so tough that VERY few people can qualify. That's why FHA, VA, RHDA loans are so popular now. THEIR standards haven't changed, so now those loans are EASIER to get than private loans wheras in the past they were harder to get.

As to this proposal, if it would keep people in their homes and cut foreclosures until the market recovers (if it ever does), IOW if it would STABALIZE the market, I don't see what would be wrong with it AS LONG AS THE BANKS TOOK A HAIRCUT ON IT TOO.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

99. If your assumptions are correct, I would tend to agree

however, there are not enough details in Moran soundbite to support your assumptions as the only valid ones. As I alluded to previously the devil is in the details and we don't have any nor will we.

[FarCenter]

27. Helps a small percentage of the people with underwater mortgages

This does not help people who rent, who already have been forclosed upon or forced into a short sale, or homeowners who do not have mortgages (about 40% of them) or who have mortgages with a LTV ratio below 70% and can refi conventionally.

So maybe 15% of the people get a windfall from this, mainly in a few states like CA, NV, AZ, FL, MI and IL.

[ThomWV]

39. And which Congress, pray tell, is going to appropriate the money to do this?

Where does this fool think the President will get the money? The President has no stash of cash that could accomplish this and if the President were to try it you would see the next "Continuing Resolution" go un-passed and Government would come to a near complete halt within the week.

[boston bean]

40. Please watch the video, I think it will explain why Jim Moran says he has this power.

Without Congressional approval.

[dems_rightnow]

95. Where's he going to get the 10 trillion $

There's $10 trillion of mortgage debt out there. He'd have to come up with ten trillion dollars to loan.

[Kingofalldems]

51. Love this idea.

Wow. Someone called for Moran's resignation for expressing an opinion? I wonder why?

[NYC_SKP]

53. Obama should unilaterally Mow my Lawn and Fix my Headlight....

I'm not confident that Congress will support the mortgage refinancing thing, so we may as well direct him to do something he can do without them.

....

I would love for someone to refinance every home mortgage to a low fixed rate, including my own which is presently at a fixed 4.5%, but the constitution prevents a president from acting unilaterally without the express and sustained support of congress.

"Jump, Obama, Jump!"

"What, you can't? What a Loser!"

"What, you won't? What a Republican!"

x(

[boston bean]

54. i take it you didn't watch the video? nt

[NYC_SKP]

55. No, I read the transcript. I stand by my assertion that Wall Street won't let him do it.

They won't let him take away their business like that.

It's utterly unimaginable that mortgage banks and holders of lucrative home mortgages will let them go without a fight.

[boston bean]

56. Wall Street won't let him do it?? So they are more powerful than the POTUS?

Other presidents have stood up to this power. Barack Obama should too.

[NYC_SKP]

60. When has a POTUS without a sympathetic Congress EVER done anything so bold?

FDR has a practical LOCK on Congress, I'll be happy to dig up the numbers of Dems in both houses if you like.

So, what president has EVER taken over such a large segment of the economy.

:shrug:

What I see is an effort in the article (and elsewhere) by people from both sides to set up impossible expectations so that the president can only fail.

So, show me a similar bold action and I'll shut up, maybe I've forgotten something in our history.

[boston bean]

61. No one would ever know unless he was bold enough to try it, right?

You leave out the point that the people, not just congress people, forced those changes in FDR's time.

If we weren't so divided on the left and we demanded things, our politicians might respond positively.

But some are afraid or happy with the status quo.

It starts with us. Not them.

Get on board and throw your voice in with what is right. Stop being so afraid.

edit to remove the letters nt.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

72. He lacks the basic authority to do anywhere near what you advocate

He doesn't even have the authority to do what Moran discussed, and Moran admitted it.

NYC SKP is correct about FDR. If Obama had the Senate and Congress in his pocket, he could get enabling legislation through. Without it, this is nothing more than Moran making media soundbites

[boston bean]

73. Moran admitted what??

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. That legislation and appropriations were needed

but that the administration was looking into what it could do without it.

[boston bean]

103. that is not what he said. in fact it was the opposite. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

62. Well that's the idea behind OWS isn't it?

That Wall Street won't let him do it and that they're more powerful than the POTUS.

So legally he can, but practically he can't is what I'm getting out of this discussion to this point. And so many people think that this system can be "reformed" to benefit the 99%? This should point out that bullshit. To quote Emma Goldman, "If voting did any good, it would be illegal." To paraphrase Emma, "If it benefits the 99% at the expense of the 1%, it will be illegal."

[NYC_SKP]

66. I think you're right except not sure he can legally do it. For sure he can't practically without US

So, yeah, the OWS movement is consistent with what he said all through his candidacy; that he can't do it alone, that our voices are at least as important as his input.

Excellent point!

:toast:

[boston bean]

75. I would hope our voices meant more. However that doesn't seem to be the case.

Most people in this country wanted single payer.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

85. He can not do it legally today

If OWS results in real reform, then maybe. It would be during Obama's 2nd term at best.

[dionysus]

57. this thread is awesome.

:rofl:

[Codeine]

59. Place does get fuckin' wacky some days, doesn't it? nt

[dionysus]

63. some people think the president could unilaterally;

institute single payer
close gitmo
immediately end the wars
nationalize the banks

ect ect ect

[boston bean]

64. that is bologne.

People think he could have done a better job at fighting for those things. And since he didn't, or took things things off the table, they question his motives.

However, this, according to Jim Moran, is something he could wave a magic at and complete.

[Tejas]

65. YUP! n/t

[ms.smiler]

93. I have a better idea than refinancing home mortgages.

Since the Wall Street banks defrauded both investors and homeowners with securitized mortgages, how about homeowners file Quiet Title actions to obtain their Deeds and money damages?

That is a much better remedy since the banks have clouded millions of Titles and the homeowners won't ever receive a valid Deed no matter how much money they pay or how many times they refinance.

A mortgage loan need only be paid once and the Wall Street banks have no legal right to collect multiple times upon the same debt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2171643&mesg_id=2173741


I’ve been researching mortgage/foreclosure fraud for 3 years. I recently filed a Quiet Title suit over a new MERS issue. 300 such suits were filed in PA & NJ and in 297 of those suits, the mortgage servicers are either voluntarily withdrawing their fraudulent liens or the court will strike them from our land records. My case is among the 1% going to trial and is closest to trial.

Since it is so easy to strike invalid property liens, why should homeowners with a securitized mortgage refinance?

[sweetapogee]

105. Question???

Will a sucessful Quiet Title suit change the assumption I have that the homeowner still has to pay the note? How much does it cost to bring such a suit to the courts?

[ms.smiler]

106. It can and I will explain.

Only about 15% of mortgages are legitimate and haven't been securitized. A MERS mortgage is definately a securitized mortgage but even non-MERS mortgages have been securitized.

This information would be useful for anyone with a securitized mortgage or a property with MERS documents in the Title history.

An experienced attorney, who well understands securitized mortgages and this scam, can use all of the fraud committed by the loan originators, the banks and their servicing companies against them and to the homeowners’ advantage.

In a very real sense, my attorney is using the illusion that the banks purposely created to our advantage. We called them out on a particular fraud, and they are free to go along with what we want, or reveal even more fraud to the court and increase my damages. So I expect to leave court with no debt, my Deed and clear Title plus money damages.

Our cases utilize a new avenue of attack. The banks hadn’t been challenged on this point and they have no defense.

It is well established how MERS creates their supposed Vice Presidents and Assistant Secretaries through their practice, documents, business records, sworn testimony, etc. As a business person I knew darn well that MERS was a sham organization with their 20,000 or so Certifying Officers and no employees. It took my attorney to uncover the legal reason.

Found in Delaware law, where MERS is incorporated, is the legal process by which companies must create Vice Presidents and Assistant Secretaries. At no time in MERS history have they EVER legally created any Vice Presidents or Assistant Secretaries with any authority, whatsoever.

All of MERS Affidavits, Assignments of Mortgage & Satisfactions of Mortgage are invalid and fraudulent, clouding the Title and need to be stricken from our land records. Their documents may as well have been signed by the gum chewing teen behind the cash register at your local pizza shop.

These same invalid and fraudulent MERS documents have been used in millions of wrongful foreclosures to steal property from homeowners.

My attorney decided on two Quiet Title suits. The first one was very simple and specific challenging the authority of the persons who signed the documents. The second suit would be larger and involve more Defendants. That’s her strategy but everything can be accomplished in one suit.

The first simple suit could be done even if someone was in foreclosure.

This particular issue has got to be toxic for the banks. In 99% of the cases, they didn’t even want to set foot in court and the homeowners won by default. Many of the homeowners who were in foreclosure are no longer in foreclosure because their servicers voluntarily withdrew the suits.

My attorney said the banks don’t want a ruling on this issue. It was my servicer who foolishly and unwittingly volunteered themselves for a ruling. They agreed to voluntarily withdraw the lien on my property. Ever since I first started researching this fraud, I made a daily habit of searching my property records online. It was the following day I discovered a new and second lien on my property which I immediately sent to my attorney.

That brought the hammer down on my servicer and they are worse off then when they started. As a result, there was no agreement and now they have two invalid liens to explain to the court. Plus, there is also an Injunction to keep them from filing anything more on my property and a Subpoena for a MERS official.

When I hired my attorney, I told her I would love to be part of something groundbreaking in the fight against the banks. It certainly appears that she is fulfilling my wish.

I looked for someone who understood securitized mortgages better than I, and who valued their work in addition to money. I wanted someone sharp with a good heart, built like a DU member and not afraid to make enemies. It took me months, but I finally found her.

She requests $2,500 for filing both Quiet Title suits which she’ll accept in 5 payments if that better suits the client. Regardless of the amount of damages, she expects $10,000 only after she wins the Deed, free and clear of any debt. Any good attorney who knows what they’re doing won’t expect a large upfront sum from homeowners because they know they’ll make their money off the banksters.

A Quiet Title suit takes about 6 months to complete. Of course I'm eager to share what we accomplish with DU.

Other states might be different but in PA there are only a few specific reasons to Appeal this type of suit so my attorney considers it extremely unlikely they would or could Appeal.

My attorney worked for a large prominent law firm in Philadelphia and left to concentrate on helping homeowners. She thought she would be going up against counsel of similar stature. Everything in this scam though is done according to what is cost efficient so my servicer is using their flunky foreclose mill to represent them.

My attorney also expects that this problem will take down MERS and none of her clients mind. It was the banks in the first place who needed secret privatized land records to conceal their fraud - not the homeowners.

I love fighting banksters. :patriot:

[sweetapogee]

108. in a nut shell

If you are successful, then you will have the balance of your note forgiven for a $10,000 attorney fee? And you are basing your success on the concept that if it goes to trial, the note holder will write off your note based on the assumption that the bank will not tolerate discovery, rather, it will take the hit to avoid unmasking far greater evils?

[ms.smiler]

109. Like most homeowners I have a securitized mortgage.

That means that some Wall Street bank placed itself between the actual lender, (the investor) and the borrower, me, and defrauded both parties while the investors and homeowners defrauded no one.

Since the banks defrauded both the investors and homeowners, they are the responsible party to make the injured and damaged parties whole. As one of the injured parties, it is not my responsibility to make some other injured party in this scam whole on behalf of the bank who defrauded them.

Since I have a securitized mortgage, I know it was sold off to Wall Street shortly after I signed the papers. It was sold 4 or 5 times prior to securitization. None of those transfers were filed in our public land records as required by law. My Title was clouded at that point.

The Wall Street banks often pledged mortgage loans to more than one Trust. Whether or not my loan was pledged once or multiple times, that transfer wasn’t recorded in our public land records as required by law.

I agreed in my mortgage loan that it could be sold but I never agreed that my Promissory Note could be turned into a security that would be used to defraud investors.

I was never informed what Trust supposedly owned and held my loan. My loan would have had a second set of books over on Wall Street and at no point in time did anyone provide me a full accounting of my loan, nor did anyone explain to me how Credit Enhancements and Credit Default Swaps impacted the balance due or how the Pooling & Servicing Agreement governed how payments were applied in the Trust in which my loan was placed.

How do I even know that the right party is receiving the money from my mortgage payments?

No one ever notified me of what happened to my loan. Was it part of failed MBS that was sold off to the Federal Reserve or U.S. government after the financial crisis? Does is still sit in a functioning Trust? If it does, why doesn’t the Trust have a lien on my property?

No matter how much money I pay, I won’t ever receive a valid Satisfaction of Mortgage from MERS or have a clear Title to my property. Why should I or any homeowner with a securitized mortgage pay for something we won’t ever receive?

MERS has rendered our public land records system useless because we can’t go to them and determine who owns our loans. My attorney has twice now sent a QWR to my son’s servicer and twice they have violated federal law and refused to disclose the owner of his loan. So who holds his Note? Why does it need to remain a secret?

Like most mortgages, there is at least $54,000 in fraud in my mortgage subject to Treble damages. On that point alone, that is the end of the mortgage loan because someone already owes me more money than I might still owe to them, whoever they might be. Remember, it’s a secret.

All I have is some mortgage servicing company that has twice now slandered my Title and is claiming to own my loan. If they want to place themselves on the hook for the $54,000 in fraud, that’s fine with me. Or, do you propose that I spend $3,000 to conduct a full forensic audit of my mortgage to determine which Trust supposedly owns my loan and stick the investors with the bill for the fraud that they did not commit?

And if my mortgage was part of failed MBS that was sold off to the U.S. government, do you propose that Uncle Sam should write me a check?

And if my mortgage was part of failed MBS that was sold off to the Federal Reserve, how soon can I expect Mr. Bernanke to mail me a check?

Now, doesn’t it just make much more sense to you that since my mortgage servicer has twice slandered my Title and is falsely claiming to own my loan, they should be held responsible for the fraud and damages?

I know that because of the massive fraud involved in securitized mortgages, there is now an easy way out of the scam for homeowners. I have no problem though with my servicer disclosing more fraud. They are completely free to finally reveal the real holder of my Note. They are completely free to provide a full accounting of my loan that we can compare to the accounting that they provide to me. I believe that all that information would greatly enlighten the court and I am content for this trial to go on for weeks rather than days if necessary.

What do you suppose my mortgage servicer will do?

For all I know my attorney is willing to dig into the mess if necessary because I do know she has requested my loan audit from MERS. Perhaps that’s just a means though to call their bluff.

MERS has stated that it will not release complete loan records without a Subpoena. Do you not wonder why the banks need secret land records?

If my $2,500, unravels a royal mess for the banksters, it will be money extremely well spent.

[sweetapogee]

113. personally

I still think you are walking on very thin (wafer thin) legal grounds. Your argument is based on one of numerous possible scenarios. If say the bank failed and the note not covered then I think you would have a much better case. In other words, you are trying to make a possible threat of assault into established case of battery.

But of course it isn't what I think or what your lawyer thinks, it's how the courts rule on the matter that counts. I cannot envision a scenario where the courts rule in a fashion that would completely destroy the bank industry based on one of many possible outcomes and where in almost every case the two parties in the case are not victims. Person A makes an agreement with person B. In the end person A gets what person A agreed to (a loan to purchase a house) and person B gets what person B agreed to (interest on the note for servicing the loan).

When the whole thing is unraveled, the case revolves around a possible uninvited guest, person C who may or may not have broken any laws but still probably caused no harm to person A or B. And how does person A benefit and not person B? In the end, if there is anything there, one of two things in my judgement will happen, 1st is there will be a class action lawsuit which will make a bunch of lawyers rich but do little for the home owner, or 2nd, since fanny mae is the ultimate note holder on most mortgages, there will be a political solution to the problem, which will still not achieve the desired result.

This in the end will effect millions of tax payers and trillions of tax payer dollars, the number of bank executives are small in number. Think about this, if your outstanding mortgage is $300,000.00 and you have that written off, would you be able to pay the income tax next year on that amount which is as far as the IRS is concerned personal income? Most people that would find this kind of litigation attractive are those who are in financial distress and have no cash on hand to make that kind of tax payment. So you win the battle but loose the war. But still, I wish you luck.

[ms.smiler]

114. I think it is fairly easy for the court to review what MERS has done

and compare that to Delaware state law. Early in 2011, my attorney shared what she uncovered with many other attorneys across the country. They all verified the information and were extremely excited. Now, it appears in a new case in Arkansas.

Like Ohio, all the counties in Arkansas are suing MERS & the banks for the unpaid filing fees. The Ohio suit does state that MERS broke the chain of Title on properties.

Ohio

http://www.scribd.com/doc/69365481/State-of-Ohio-v-MERS-and-Banks

Arkansas

http://www.scribd.com/doc/70282740/Mayme-Brown-v-MERS-Banks-et-al

From the Arkansas Complaint:

19. “Defendants made these characterizations for MERS despite the fact that MERS never had and has no employees, and, instead, purported to act since the inception of MERS, through alleged authorized certifying officers, such as Wilson and other signatories who were never authorized to act by any lawful official act or corporate resolution of MERS or to act in any MERS’ representative capacity whatsoever. Further, such alleged signatories or certifying officers were not and are not authorized by any applicable law to take any action on behalf of MERS with regard to any documents recorded in the State bearing MERS’ name or on MERS’ behalf.”

MERS and the banks have cheated our counties out of billions of dollars in recordation fees as well as broken the chain of Title to millions of properties. They’ve used fraudulent documents to wrongfully foreclosure on millions of homeowners and stolen their properties. Their invalid and fraudulent documents have clouded the Title of millions of properties.

This is what happens when banks are deregulated and the government provides NO oversight, regulation or accountability.

We did ask my attorney about Class Action and she stated that this type of suit is best done on an individual basis. Each homeowner has been harmed in their own way and damages would vary between 6 and 7 figures.

It is my understanding that the supposed debt will not be written off but extinguished so the only tax liability I’ll face is on the damages.

The banks have stolen trillions of dollars in wealth from investors, homeowners and taxpayers. The banks, not our government, needs to make those parties whole. The scammers on Wall Street committed the fraud, not the U.S. taxpayer. If need be, let the banksters pull the money back from their offshore safe havens to pay the many suits they will face. I think of it simply as transferring wealth back to the rightful owners - the American people.

I’ve twice been a part of two conference calls with my attorney and many of her clients in two states. The American people are such a good and decent people. No one, at any time talked about money. People wanted to know how effectively this would save homes from foreclosure. They wanted to know if this would really fix the property Titles given what the banks and MERS had done to them. They wanted to know if this would help homeowners in other states.

Few homeowners had ever spoken to each other before, still it wasn’t a group of individuals, rather it was a group united in a fight against the banks. It was clear I wasn’t the only person who adored my attorney. All expressed pleasure and agreement with her efforts and many offered expressions of love for her.

My attorney hates the banksters and what they’ve done to this country. She said she’s trying to get her picture on a “Wanted” poster. Personally, I think she belongs on the cover of Rolling Stone, especially since she converses with Matt Taibbi.

There’s a network of fine people across the country working hard to hold the banks accountable for their massive frauds. I’m doing it at my county courthouse and I appreciate your good wishes.

[Nodak]

96. Rep Moran is the

victim of a cranial-rectal inversion.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

102. He is a good pol doing what pols do, including making sound bites for media

Some here are reading way too much into what he said...

[Vidar]

97. But that would interfere with his next Wall Street bailout.